COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey
Bloch School of Management
University of Missouri-Kansas City
2014
Table of Contents
Response Rates……………………………………………………………………………………………
3
COACHE Benchmarks……………………………………………………………………………………
4
Overall Satisfaction Graphs……………………………………………………………………………..
5
Nature of Work: Teaching, Research, Service (benchmark and item means )…………………
6
Facilities, Policies, Benefits and Salary (benchmark and item means )…………………………
8
Interdisciplinary Work, Collaboration, Mentoring (benchmark and item means )……………..
10
Mentoring Graphs…………………………………………………………………………………………
11
Tenure and Promotion (benchmark and item means )……………………………………………..
13
Leadership and Governance (benchmark and item means )………………………………………
15
Priorities Graph…………………………………………………………………………………………….
16
Departmental Collegiality, Engagement and Quality (benchmark and item means )………….
17
Departmental Graphs……………………………………………………………………………………..
19
Appreciation and Recognition (benchmark and item means )…………………………………….
20
Appreciation Graph……………………………………………………………………………………….
21
Best Aspects……………………………………………………………………………………………….
22
Worst Aspects………………………………………………………………………………………………
23
Retention and Negotiations………………………………………………………………………………
24
Retention Graphs……………………………………………………………………………………………
25
Thematic Coding of Open-Ended Comments…………………………………………………………
26
Additional Institutional Questions (item means )……………………………………………………..
27
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
RESPONSE RATES
Bloch School of Management
population
responders
response Rate
UMKC
Bloch
399
31
222
55.6%
19
61.3%
3
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
COACHE BENCHMARKS
Bloch School of Management
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
Nature of Work: Teaching
3.49
3.78
3.80
3.57
3.77
3.62
3.71
3.66
3.71
Nature of Work: Research
3.09
3.07
3.07
3.05
3.29
3.18
3.20
3.22
3.12
Nature of Work: Service
2.90
3.21
3.23
3.21
3.38
3.26
3.25
3.28
3.27
Facilities and work resources
3.52
3.52
3.52
3.55
3.52
3.57
3.40
3.23
3.41
Personal and family policies
3.10
3.03
3.02
2.81
3.10
3.14
2.97
3.27
3.01
Health and retirement benefits
3.46
3.62
3.63
2.81
3.94
3.81
3.55
3.65
3.53
Interdisciplinary work
2.14
2.40
2.42
2.74
2.83
2.67
2.70
2.69
2.63
Collaboration
3.21
3.45
3.47
3.56
3.71
3.50
3.63
3.61
3.52
Mentoring
2.44
2.98
3.04
2.94
3.09
2.88
3.05
2.91
3.00
Tenure policies
‐‐‐
3.63
3.80
3.31
3.61
3.35
3.65
3.28
3.45
Tenure clarity
‐‐‐
3.52
3.63
3.11
3.62
3.20
3.41
3.47
3.37
Tenure reasonableness
‐‐‐
3.86
3.94
3.66
3.93
3.78
3.80
3.72
3.84
Promotion
3.03
3.40
3.44
3.51
3.76
3.47
3.73
3.53
3.59
Leadership: Senior
2.95
2.87
2.87
3.39
3.25
2.90
3.53
3.43
3.12
Leadership: Divisional
3.11
3.08
3.07
3.07
3.25
3.08
3.21
3.15
3.22
Leadership: Departmental
2.84
3.46
3.52
3.46
3.69
3.53
3.70
3.72
3.67
Departmental engagement
3.35
3.48
3.49
3.78
3.74
3.69
3.84
3.82
3.84
Departmental quality
3.45
3.46
3.46
3.46
3.41
3.48
3.51
3.45
3.46
Departmental collegiality
3.55
3.74
3.76
3.59
3.55
3.47
3.59
3.51
3.55
Appreciation and recognition
2.96
3.06
3.06
3.22
3.26
3.16
3.39
3.29
3.28
4
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
OVERALL SATISFACTION GRAPHS
Bloch School of Management
"If I had it to do all over, I would again choose to work at this institution."
100%
75%
somewhat or strongly agree
50%
neither/nor
somewhat or strongly disagree
25%
0%
If a candidate for a position asked you about your department as a place to work, would you...
100%
75%
50%
strongly recommend your department as a place to
work
recommend your department with reservations
not recommend your department as a place to work
25%
0%
5
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
NATURE OF WORK:
TEACHING, RESEARCH, SERVICE Bloch School of Management
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
Benchmark: Nature of Work Teach1
Time spent on teaching
Number of courses taught
Level of courses taught
Discretion over course content
Number of students in courses taught
Quality of students taught
Equitability of distribution of teaching load
Quality of grad students to support teaching
3.49
4.00
4.00
4.05
4.11
3.26
3.00
2.74
2.50
3.78
4.01
3.99
4.10
4.34
3.90
3.35
3.16
3.18
3.80
4.00
3.99
4.10
4.36
3.96
3.38
3.20
3.24
3.57
3.71
3.80
3.97
4.40
3.51
3.00
3.09
3.02
3.77
3.87
3.90
4.09
4.38
3.80
3.35
3.22
3.50
3.62
3.72
3.86
4.03
4.28
3.41
3.31
3.17
3.04
3.71
3.84
3.75
4.02
4.42
3.73
3.27
3.20
3.32
3.66
3.87
3.61
3.96
4.41
3.63
3.26
3.23
2.96
3.71
3.90
3.66
4.01
4.40
3.68
3.32
3.26
3.05
Benchmark: Nature of Work Research1
Time spent on research
Expectations for finding external funding
Influence over focus of research
Quality of grad students to support research
Suport for research
Support for engaging undergrads in research
Support for obtaining grants
Support for maintaining grants
Support for securing grad student assistance
Support for travel to present/conduct research
Availability of course release for research
3.09
3.68
3.80
4.16
2.31
2.76
2.83
2.79
2.60
2.39
3.21
2.47
3.07
3.41
3.17
4.22
2.97
2.61
2.82
2.90
2.96
2.79
2.88
2.56
3.07
3.38
3.12
4.22
3.03
2.59
2.82
2.90
2.98
2.84
2.85
2.57
3.05
3.33
2.92
4.25
2.97
2.81
2.83
3.04
2.60
2.66
3.18
2.67
3.29
3.67
3.32
4.48
3.36
2.80
3.27
3.11
3.17
2.99
3.12
2.82
3.18
3.16
3.19
4.36
2.94
3.04
3.21
3.15
2.99
2.87
3.33
2.50
3.20
3.35
3.17
4.34
3.11
2.75
2.90
3.26
3.23
2.78
3.24
2.57
3.22
3.44
3.01
4.29
2.94
3.01
3.16
3.15
2.96
2.63
3.10
3.03
3.12
3.17
3.11
4.24
2.94
2.82
3.05
3.03
3.05
2.65
3.10
2.50
Benchmark: Nature of Work Service1
Time spent on service
Support for faculty in leadership roles
Number of committees
Attractiveness of committees
Discretion to choose committees
Equitability of committee assignments
Number of student advisees
2.90
2.79
2.50
2.74
3.00
3.26
3.05
3.33
3.21
3.24
2.71
3.41
3.33
3.49
3.04
3.52
3.23
3.28
2.73
3.47
3.36
3.52
3.04
3.54
3.21
3.28
2.66
3.34
3.40
3.52
3.01
3.66
3.38
3.44
3.02
3.60
3.49
3.49
3.12
3.69
3.26
3.36
2.65
3.52
3.48
3.42
3.08
3.21
3.25
3.42
2.86
3.39
3.35
3.39
3.01
3.55
3.28
3.44
2.84
3.44
3.47
3.48
2.96
3.24
3.27
3.37
2.71
3.43
3.46
3.56
3.05
3.44
1
All of the items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
6
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
NATURE OF WORK:
TEACHING, RESEARCH, SERVICE Bloch School of Management
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
3.44
2.83
3.58
3.46
3.04
3.31
3.46
3.06
3.28
3.61
2.85
3.08
3.59
3.09
3.59
3.52
2.83
3.07
3.64
3.04
3.36
3.60
2.83
3.13
3.50
2.91
3.14
1
Related survey items
Time spent on outreach
Time spent on administrative tasks
Ability to balance teaching/research/service
1
All of these items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
7
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
FACILITIES, POLICIES, BENEFITS AND SALARY
Bloch School of Management
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
Benchmark: Facilities and Work Resources1
Support for improving teaching
Office
Laboratory, research, studio space
Equipment
Classrooms
Library resources
Computing and technical support
Clerical/administrative support
3.52
3.06
3.95
3.31
3.28
4.00
3.74
3.58
3.05
3.52
3.12
3.86
3.38
3.36
3.62
3.75
3.68
3.32
3.52
3.13
3.85
3.39
3.37
3.59
3.76
3.69
3.35
3.55
3.40
3.89
3.32
3.50
3.53
3.82
3.70
3.09
3.52
3.28
3.77
3.61
3.40
3.35
3.79
3.66
3.24
3.57
3.27
3.88
3.48
3.56
3.42
4.02
3.45
3.41
3.40
3.27
3.64
3.13
3.23
3.17
3.76
3.42
3.42
3.23
3.03
3.64
2.77
3.35
3.19
3.36
3.40
2.78
3.41
3.24
3.74
3.17
3.33
3.31
3.68
3.40
3.30
Benchmark: Personal and Family Policies2
Housing benefits
Tuition waivers, remission, or exchange
Spousal/partner hiring program
Childcare
Eldercare
Family medical/parental leave
Flexible workload/modified duties
Stop‐the‐clock policies
Inst. does what it can for work/life compat.
Right balance between professional/personal
3.10
‐‐‐
3.10
2.00
2.50
‐‐‐
2.71
3.11
‐‐‐
2.88
3.61
3.03
2.33
2.99
2.58
2.74
2.87
3.25
3.38
3.17
2.96
3.37
3.02
2.39
2.98
2.64
2.77
2.89
3.29
3.40
3.47
2.97
3.35
2.81
2.18
2.17
2.34
1.97
2.39
3.57
3.34
3.78
2.84
3.23
3.10
2.48
2.43
3.00
3.00
2.85
3.22
3.36
3.68
3.12
3.54
3.14
2.38
3.43
2.60
2.40
2.60
3.27
3.53
3.02
2.89
3.15
2.97
2.34
2.48
2.50
2.64
2.89
3.46
3.56
3.64
3.06
3.35
3.27
2.51
3.25
2.74
2.49
2.75
3.76
3.42
3.79
3.04
3.31
3.01
2.29
2.77
2.57
2.64
2.76
3.36
3.39
3.39
2.97
3.26
Benchmark: Health and Retirement Benefits3
Health benefits for yourself
Health benefits for family
Retirement benefits
Phased retirement options
3.46
3.47
3.29
3.68
3.13
3.62
3.75
3.69
3.61
3.22
3.63
3.77
3.72
3.60
3.22
2.81
2.75
2.24
3.10
3.21
3.94
4.13
4.07
3.80
3.38
3.81
3.88
3.76
3.92
3.27
3.55
3.77
3.55
3.38
3.33
3.65
3.85
3.75
3.59
3.12
3.53
3.66
3.53
3.50
3.20
1
All of the items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
2
The first eight items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied. The remaining two items were answered on a 5‐point
Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
3
All of these items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
8
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
FACILITIES, POLICIES, BENEFITS AND SALARY
Bloch School of Management
Related survey items
Salary
1
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
3.00
2.59
2.55
2.48
3.57
3.14
2.53
3.55
2.88
1
This item was answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
9
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK,
COLLABORATION, MENTORING
Bloch School of Management
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
Benchmark: Interdisciplinary Work1
Budgets encourage interdiscip. work
Facilities conducive to interdiscip. work
Interdiscip. work is rewarded in merit
Interdiscip. work is rewarded in promotion
Interdiscip. work is rewarded in tenure
Dept. knows how to evaluate interdisc. work
2.14
1.93
2.25
2.06
2.00
‐‐‐
2.33
2.40
2.29
2.36
2.29
2.27
2.79
2.61
2.42
2.32
2.37
2.32
2.29
2.92
2.64
2.74
2.56
2.69
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.77
2.83
2.85
2.55
2.71
2.75
2.89
3.10
2.67
2.66
2.76
2.61
2.65
2.57
2.60
2.70
2.45
2.45
2.80
2.91
2.96
2.92
2.69
2.75
2.52
2.72
2.67
3.21
2.79
2.63
2.49
2.59
2.56
2.58
2.78
2.79
Benchmark: Collaboration2
Opportunities for collab. within dept.
Opportunities for collab. outside dept.
Opportunities for collab. outside inst.
3.21
3.00
3.00
3.63
3.45
3.53
3.28
3.55
3.47
3.58
3.31
3.54
3.56
3.65
3.44
3.59
3.71
3.67
3.53
3.93
3.50
3.51
3.34
3.64
3.63
3.74
3.48
3.64
3.61
3.69
3.55
3.58
3.52
3.63
3.38
3.51
Benchmark: Mentoring3
Effectiveness of mentoring from within dept.
Effectiveness of mentoring from outside dept.
Effectiveness of mentoring from outside inst.
Mentoring of pre‐tenure faculty
Mentoring of associate faculty
Support for faculty to be good mentors
Being a mentor is fulfilling
2.44
2.85
2.82
3.87
2.61
2.21
2.00
4.27
2.98
3.50
3.32
3.93
3.27
2.42
2.21
4.11
3.04
3.54
3.36
3.94
3.33
2.44
2.23
4.09
2.94
3.44
3.17
3.84
3.01
2.51
2.65
4.02
3.09
3.34
3.47
3.89
3.35
2.54
2.46
4.09
2.88
3.54
3.47
3.98
2.86
2.32
2.25
4.15
3.05
3.61
3.34
3.67
3.33
2.43
2.49
4.06
2.91
3.54
3.53
3.82
2.94
2.42
2.18
4.28
3.00
3.57
3.41
3.79
3.12
2.45
2.31
4.12
Related survey items 4
Importance of mentoring within dept.
Importance of mentoring outside dept.
Importance of mentoring outside inst.
3.94
3.59
3.76
4.23
3.60
3.89
4.26
3.60
3.90
4.11
3.37
3.62
4.06
3.51
3.86
4.13
3.48
3.83
4.19
3.38
3.45
4.32
3.78
3.76
4.19
3.56
3.64
1
All of the items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
2
All of the items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
3
The first three items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very ineffective to 5 = very effective. The remaining four items were answered on a 5‐point
Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
4
All of these items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unimportant to 5 = very important.
10
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
MENTORING GRAPHS
Bloch School of Management
Effectiveness of mentoring for those faculty who rated mentoring as important
% faculty rating mentoring
from within dept. as
important
71%
% faculty rating
mentoring from outside
dept. as important
53%
59%
44%
22%
33%
% faculty rating
mentoring from outside
inst. as important
42%
25%
33%
10%
80%
somewhat or very effective
neither/nor
have not received
10%
somewhat or very ineffective
% of respondents reporting s/he has not received mentoring within the department
% of respondents reporting s/he has not received mentoring outside the department at this institution
75%
50%
35%
25%
27%
24%
10%
0%
Bloch
UMKC
11
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
MENTORING GRAPHS
Bloch School of Management
% of respondents who report serving as a mentor in the past five years
100%
79%
77%
Bloch
UMKC
75%
50%
25%
0%
outside the
department
within the
department
Whom are the mentors mentoring?
pre‐tenure faculty
tenured faculty
non‐tenure track faculty
pre‐tenure faculty
tenured faculty
non‐tenure track faculty
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
75.0%
100.0%
12
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
TENURE AND PROMOTION
Bloch School of Management
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
Benchmark: Tenure Policies1
Clarity of tenure process
Clarity of tenure criteria
Clarity of tenure standards
Clarity of body of evidence for deciding tenure
Clarity of whether I will achieve tenure
Consistency of messages about tenure
Tenure decisions are performance‐based
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
3.63
3.67
3.59
3.49
3.72
3.74
3.49
3.68
3.80
3.80
3.71
3.69
3.80
3.97
3.71
3.91
3.31
3.48
3.46
3.07
3.67
3.35
2.81
3.45
3.61
3.78
3.73
3.53
3.75
3.52
3.27
3.73
3.35
3.43
3.33
3.16
3.49
3.64
2.99
3.42
3.65
3.84
3.72
3.50
3.78
3.73
3.29
3.72
3.28
3.32
3.32
2.97
3.42
3.35
2.97
3.74
3.45
3.61
3.59
3.29
3.60
3.47
3.04
3.53
Benchmark: Tenure Clarity2
Clarity of expectations: Scholar
Clarity of expectations: Teacher
Clarity of expectations: Advisor
Clarity of expectations: Colleague
Clarity of expectations: Campus citizen
Clarity of expectations: Broader community
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
3.52
3.87
3.90
3.58
3.51
3.24
3.00
3.63
4.09
4.00
3.63
3.57
3.29
3.14
3.11
3.57
3.69
2.94
3.00
2.74
2.71
3.62
4.13
4.03
3.56
3.44
3.23
3.21
3.20
3.64
3.82
3.14
2.97
2.94
2.73
3.41
3.81
3.85
3.35
3.30
3.17
3.01
3.47
3.50
4.16
3.49
3.34
3.24
3.08
3.37
3.63
3.89
3.33
3.31
3.13
2.92
Benchmark: Tenure Reasonableness3
Reasonable expectations: Scholar
Reasonable expectations: Teacher
Reasonable expectations: Advisor
Reasonable expectations: Colleague
Reasonable expectations: Campus citizen
Reasonable expectations: Community member
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
3.86
4.05
4.05
3.81
3.90
3.72
3.58
3.94
4.21
4.15
3.85
3.94
3.75
3.70
3.66
3.75
3.98
3.69
3.76
3.53
3.40
3.93
3.91
4.12
4.03
3.91
3.82
3.82
3.78
3.93
3.91
3.72
3.71
3.71
3.66
3.80
3.95
4.13
3.76
3.93
3.75
3.61
3.72
3.43
4.11
3.63
3.79
3.85
3.64
3.84
3.79
4.10
3.85
3.88
3.74
3.62
1
The first five items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unclear to 5 = very clear. The last two items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
2
All of the items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unclear to 5 = very clear. 3
All of the items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unreasonable to 5 = very reasonable.
13
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
TENURE AND PROMOTION
Bloch School of Management
Benchmark: Promotion1
Reasonable expectations: Promotion
Dept. culture encourages promotion
Clarity of promotion process
Clarity of promotion criteria
Clarity of promotion standards
Clarity of body of evidence for deciding promotion
Clarity of timeframe for promotion
Clarity of whether I will be promoted
1
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
3.03
3.00
2.93
3.53
3.07
2.73
3.40
2.67
2.43
3.40
3.54
3.11
3.62
3.54
3.34
3.57
3.23
3.06
3.44
3.58
3.13
3.63
3.58
3.40
3.59
3.28
3.11
3.51
3.51
3.37
3.68
3.64
3.41
3.68
3.38
3.24
3.76
3.86
3.66
3.92
3.91
3.69
3.98
3.41
3.52
3.47
3.64
3.36
3.64
3.52
3.30
3.63
3.35
3.06
3.73
3.89
3.66
3.94
3.85
3.60
3.87
3.49
3.01
3.53
3.42
3.43
3.76
3.67
3.45
3.60
3.51
2.93
3.59
3.68
3.42
3.78
3.72
3.52
3.73
3.46
3.09
The first two items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The remaining six items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unclear to 5 = very clear.
14
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
Bloch School of Management
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
Leadership Items (not included in
benchmark scores)1
Priorities are stated consistently
Priorities are acted on consistently Changed priorities negatively affect my work
2.28
1.94
2.53
2.64
2.35
2.31
2.67
2.39
2.29
2.96
2.79
2.64
3.01
2.86
3.01
2.63
2.62
2.64
3.20
2.92
3.33
3.15
2.97
3.05
2.82
2.65
2.77
Benchmark: Leadership: Senior2
Chancellor: Pace of decision making
Chancellor: Stated priorities
Chancellor: Communication of priorities
Provost: Pace of decision making
Provost: Stated priorities
Provost: Communication of priorities
2.95
3.00
3.06
3.05
2.80
2.94
2.71
2.87
3.07
2.95
2.89
2.89
2.76
2.76
2.87
3.08
2.94
2.87
2.90
2.75
2.76
3.39
3.54
3.35
3.56
3.41
3.29
3.26
3.25
3.28
3.30
3.27
3.24
3.22
3.15
2.90
2.92
2.81
2.75
3.07
2.97
2.90
3.53
3.67
3.69
3.94
3.27
3.30
3.30
3.43
3.91
3.79
3.65
3.17
3.05
2.99
3.12
3.19
3.16
3.11
3.11
3.09
3.05
Benchmark: Leadership: Divisional2
Dean: Pace of decision making
Dean: Stated priorities
Dean: Communication of priorities
Dean: Ensuring faculty input
3.11
3.33
3.00
3.11
3.00
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.12
3.03
3.07
3.05
3.09
3.12
3.03
3.07
3.22
3.10
3.04
2.91
3.25
3.37
3.29
3.27
3.11
3.08
3.24
3.09
3.12
2.89
3.21
3.39
3.24
3.12
3.12
3.15
3.19
3.18
3.17
3.01
3.22
3.30
3.22
3.22
3.13
Benchmark: Leadership: Departmental2
Chair: Pace of decision making
Chair: Stated priorities
Chair: Communication of priorities
Chair: Ensuring faculty input
Chair: Fairness in evaluating work
2.84
2.80
2.80
2.73
2.73
3.08
3.46
3.47
3.33
3.38
3.53
3.60
3.52
3.53
3.38
3.44
3.61
3.64
3.46
3.40
3.39
3.39
3.48
3.66
3.69
3.71
3.61
3.63
3.62
3.87
3.53
3.50
3.45
3.44
3.54
3.74
3.70
3.69
3.58
3.61
3.70
3.92
3.72
3.67
3.56
3.60
3.72
3.97
3.67
3.62
3.58
3.59
3.72
3.86
1
All of these items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
2
All of the items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
15
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
PRIORITIES GRAPH
Bloch School of Management
My institution's priorities have changed in ways that negatively affect my work (% of respondents who agree)
75%
60%
53%
50%
25%
0%
Bloch
UMKC
16
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
DEPARTMENTAL COLLEGIALITY,
ENGAGEMENT AND QUALITY
Bloch School of Management
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
Benchmark: Departmental Collegiality
Colleagues support work/life balance
Mtg. times compatible with pers. needs
Amount of pers. interaction w/Pre‐tenure
How well you fit
Amount of pers. interaction w/Tenured
Colleagues pitch in when needed
Dept. is collegial
3.55
3.53
3.61
3.78
3.47
3.67
3.50
3.50
3.74
3.70
4.05
3.71
3.57
3.64
3.73
3.69
3.76
3.72
4.09
3.70
3.58
3.64
3.75
3.71
3.78
3.56
3.98
3.76
3.71
3.70
3.68
3.90
3.74
3.59
4.06
3.75
3.69
3.62
3.68
3.83
3.69
3.57
4.02
3.76
3.50
3.54
3.66
3.71
3.84
3.68
4.04
3.71
3.75
3.70
3.86
4.00
3.82
3.66
4.15
3.69
3.88
3.61
3.79
4.00
3.84
3.70
4.06
3.74
3.78
3.70
3.81
3.97
Related survey items 2
Colleagues committed to diversity
3.44
3.89
3.93
3.98
3.84
3.82
3.97
3.96
3.99
Benchmark: Departmental Engagement3
Discussions of undergrad student learning
Discussions of grad student learning
Discussions of effective teaching practices
Discussions of effective use of technology
Discussions of current research methods
Amount of prof. interaction w/Pre‐tenure
Amount of prof. interaction w/Tenured
3.35
3.12
3.58
3.26
3.11
2.89
3.83
3.72
3.48
3.49
3.57
3.42
3.29
3.11
3.75
3.72
3.49
3.52
3.56
3.43
3.30
3.13
3.74
3.72
3.46
3.54
3.47
3.35
3.17
3.17
3.79
3.73
3.41
3.07
3.71
3.17
3.04
3.36
3.86
3.68
3.48
3.60
3.57
3.39
3.24
3.21
3.81
3.57
3.51
3.51
3.48
3.32
3.34
3.27
3.86
3.81
3.45
3.73
3.21
3.44
3.22
3.11
3.80
3.70
3.46
3.68
2.98
3.50
3.30
3.09
3.84
3.77
1
1
The first two items and the last two items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The remaining three items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
2
This item was answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
3
The first five items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = frequently. The remaining two items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.
17
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
DEPARTMENTAL COLLEGIALITY,
ENGAGEMENT AND QUALITY
Bloch School of Management
1
Benchmark: Departmental Quality
Intellectual vitality of tenured faculty
Intellectual vitality of pre‐tenure faculty
Scholarly productivity of tenured faculty
Scholarly productivity of pre‐tenure faculty
Teaching effectiveness of tenured faculty
Teaching effectiveness of pre‐tenure faculty
Dept. is successful at faculty recruitment
Dept. is successful at faculty retention
Dept. addresses sub‐standard performance
1
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
3.45
2.94
4.05
2.72
3.95
3.53
3.95
3.87
3.27
2.60
3.46
3.43
3.87
3.27
3.78
3.60
3.92
3.43
3.06
2.60
3.46
3.48
3.85
3.32
3.77
3.61
3.91
3.39
3.04
2.59
3.59
3.58
4.08
3.44
3.96
3.76
3.88
3.75
3.20
2.67
3.55
3.58
4.08
3.47
3.91
3.55
3.82
3.62
3.23
2.61
3.47
3.38
3.99
3.20
3.78
3.53
3.94
3.46
3.21
2.47
3.59
3.57
3.98
3.45
3.87
3.75
3.93
3.67
3.23
2.85
3.51
3.45
4.09
3.28
3.97
3.54
3.88
3.39
3.55
2.51
3.55
3.55
3.98
3.36
3.80
3.67
3.90
3.54
3.41
2.62
The first six items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied. The remaining four items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
18
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
DEPARTMENTAL GRAPHS
Bloch School of Management
Overall satisfaction with your department as a place to work
Dept. Colleagues support/promote diversity and inclusion
100%
100%
somewhat or strongly agree
75%
somewhat or very satisfied
50%
0%
neither/nor
neither/nor
somewhat or very dissatisfied
25%
75%
50%
somewhat or strongly
disagree
25%
0%
19
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
APPRECIATION AND RECOGNITION
Bloch School of Management
Benchmark: Appreciation and Recognition
Recognition: For teaching
Recognition: For advising
Recognition: For scholarship
Recognition: For service
Recognition: For outreach
Recognition: From colleagues
Recognition: From Provost
Recognition: From Dean
Recognition: From Head/Chair
School/college is valued by Pres/Provost
Dept. is valued by Pres/Provost
Provost cares about faculty of my rank
1
Unit
UMKC
w/Unit
UMKC
w/o Unit
Peer 1
Peer 2
Peer 3
Peer 4
Peer 5
All
2.96
2.83
2.86
2.83
2.39
2.20
3.39
2.54
2.87
3.15
4.07
3.13
2.83
3.06
3.24
3.06
3.12
2.94
2.97
3.55
2.69
2.94
3.36
2.83
2.66
2.79
3.06
3.28
3.07
3.14
2.99
3.05
3.56
2.70
2.95
3.38
2.71
2.61
2.78
3.22
3.25
3.04
3.26
3.07
3.07
3.60
2.92
2.94
3.47
3.50
3.19
3.12
3.26
3.24
3.05
3.42
3.15
3.07
3.57
2.95
2.94
3.51
3.62
3.22
3.13
3.16
3.24
2.87
3.25
3.04
3.04
3.48
2.82
2.94
3.43
3.51
3.19
2.98
3.39
3.35
3.20
3.47
3.23
3.33
3.66
3.03
3.11
3.70
3.71
3.47
3.20
3.29
3.44
3.08
3.38
3.12
3.07
3.71
2.93
3.11
3.62
3.65
3.18
2.94
3.28
3.33
3.04
3.30
3.12
3.08
3.67
2.92
3.11
3.63
3.45
3.20
3.13
The first nine items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied. The remaining three items were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
20
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
APPRECIATION GRAPH
Bloch School of Management
The Provost seems to care about the quality of life for faculty of my rank
100%
75%
Somewhat or strongly disagree
neither/nor
50%
I don't know
somewhat or strongly agree
25%
0%
Bloch
UMKC
21
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
BEST ASPECTS
Bloch School of Management
Faculty were asked to identify the two (and only two) best aspects of working at your institution. The top four responses for your institution are shown in red.
quality of colleagues
support of colleagues
opportunities to collaborate with colleagues
quality of graduate students
quality of undergraduate students
quality of the facilities
support for research/creative work
support for teaching
support for professional development
assistance for grant proposals
childcare policies/practices
availability/quality of childcare facilities
spousal/partner hiring program
compensation
geographic location
diversity
presence of others like me
my sense of "fit" here
protections from service/assignments
commute
cost of living
teaching load
manageable pressure to perform
academic freedom
tenure/promotion clarity or requirements
quality of leadership
other1
other2
there are no positive aspects
decline to answer
Bloch
16.7%
11.1%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
22.2%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
11.1%
27.8%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
27.8%
‐‐‐
5.6%
38.9%
5.6%
11.1%
16.7%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
5.6%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
UMKC
27.1%
17.8%
6.5%
6.5%
3.3%
4.7%
5.1%
2.3%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
2.8%
18.2%
2.3%
0.0%
12.1%
0.0%
5.1%
25.7%
14.0%
9.3%
15.4%
1.9%
1.4%
3.3%
0.9%
1.9%
2.8%
22
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
WORST ASPECTS
Bloch School of Management
Faculty were asked to identify the two (and only two) worst aspects of working at your institution. The top four responses for your institution are shown in red.
quality of colleagues
support of colleagues
opportunities to collaborate with colleagues
quality of graduate students
quality of undergraduate students
quality of the facilities
lack of support for research/creative work
lack of support for teaching
lack of support for professional development
lack of assistance for grant proposals
childcare policies/practices
availability/quality of childcare facilities
spousal/partner hiring program
compensation
geographic location
lack of diversity
absence of others like me
my lack of "fit" here
too much service/too many assignments
commute
cost of living
teaching load
unrelenting pressure to perform
academic freedom
tenure/promotion clarity or requirements
quality of leadership
other1
other2
there are no negative aspects
decline to answer
Bloch
5.6%
5.6%
11.1%
11.1%
5.6%
‐‐‐
11.1%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
5.6%
5.6%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
16.7%
11.1%
‐‐‐
22.2%
5.6%
16.7%
5.6%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
16.7%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
16.7%
5.6%
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
11.1%
UMKC
5.6%
5.6%
1.9%
5.6%
6.6%
10.8%
25.4%
0.9%
4.2%
4.2%
1.4%
0.0%
1.4%
32.9%
4.7%
3.8%
5.6%
1.9%
11.7%
5.2%
0.9%
2.8%
5.2%
1.9%
2.3%
21.1%
5.6%
0.5%
1.9%
5.2%
23
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
RETENTION AND NEGOTIATIONS
Bloch School of Management
If you could negotiate adjustments to your employment, which one of the following items would you most like to adjust?
base salary
supplemental salary
tenure clock
teaching load
administrative responsibilities
equipment
lab/research support
employment for spouse/partner
sabbatical or other leave time
Bloch
58.3%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
UMKC
56.0%
2.7%
1.6%
8.2%
6.0%
0.5%
3.3%
2.2%
11.4%
If you were to choose to leave your institution, what would be your primary reason?
to improve salary/benefits
to find a more collegial work environment
to find an employer who provides more resources in support of your work
to work at an institution whose priorities match your own
to pursue an administrative position in higher education
to pursue a nonacademic job
to improve employment opportunites for your spouse/partner
for other family or personal needs
to improve your quality of life
to retire
to move to a preferred geographic location
Bloch
23.5%
5.9%
5.9%
11.8%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.9%
41.2%
0.0%
UMKC
17.1%
6.2%
10.0%
12.9%
5.7%
1.0%
1.4%
5.2%
4.8%
25.2%
5.2%
24
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
RETENTION GRAPHS
Bloch School of Management
In the past five years have you...
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
actively sought an outside job offer
received a formal job offer
renegotiated the terms of your employment
Bloch
UMKC
How long do you plan to remain at this institution? (Tenured Faculty Only)
Bloch
14%
UMKC
43%
24%
0%
29%
18%
25%
for no more than five years
14%
37%
50%
more than five years but less than ten
21%
75%
I don't know
100%
ten years or more
25
Other
Work and Personal Life Balance
Tenure
Promotion
Professional Development
Nature of Work: Teaching
Nature of Work: Service
Nature of Work: Research
Nature of Work: General
Mentoring
UMKC
Leadership: Senior
Leadership: General
Leadership: Divisional
Leadership: Departmental
Facilities and Resources for Work
Diversity
Departmental Quality
Departmental Engagement
Departmental Collegiality
Culture
Compensation and Benefits
Collaboration and Interdisciplinary Work
Appreciation and Recognition
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
THEMATIC CODING
OF OPEN‐ENDED COMMENTS
Bloch School of Management
Please use the space below to tell us the number one thing that you, personally, feel your institution could do to improve your workplace.
Number One Thing That UMKC Can Do To Improve The Workplace
Bloch
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
26
The Collaborative on Acaemic Careers in Higher Education
Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey 2013‐2014
ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS
Bloch School of Management
Colleagues value my contribution to teaching and advising
Dept. welcome to faculty of racial/ethinic minorities
Dept. welcome to faculty of all ages
Dept. welcome to faculty of LGBTQIA community
Colleagues value my service and administrative contributions
Reluctant to raise controversial issues
Feel isolated in my department
Colleagues value my research/scholarship
Dept. welcome to women faculty
Chair/supervisor creates collegial environment
Chair/supervisor articulates criteria for promotion/tenure
Chair/supervisor creates climate that is respectful for all faculty
*
Unit
3.56
3.75
3.59
3.80
3.50
2.81
2.65
3.44
3.75
3.22
2.25
3.39
UMKC
w/Unit
3.62
3.95
3.86
3.97
3.54
2.61
2.45
3.52
4.16
3.73
3.52
3.70
UMKC
w/o Unit
3.63
3.96
3.88
3.99
3.55
2.59
2.43
3.52
4.19
3.78
3.63
3.73
All of the items under this benchmark were answered on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
27